[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

[Patrick Georgi]

2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth <gaumless at gmail.com>:
> I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE
We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now.
Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local
copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid.

> How would people feel about adding something to the coding guide to
> avoid magic numbers?
Make that a separate thread please :-)


Patrick

> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:05 AM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot
>> <coreboot at coreboot.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. TRUE/FALSE
>>> Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or
>>> True/False, or ...?
>>
>>
>> should we start using bool ...?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x10000
>>> I don't think it makes sense to go for a single one of these (0x3ff is
>>> certainly more readable than BIT11 | BIT10 | BIT9 | BIT8 | BIT7 | BIT8
>>> | BIT5 | BIT4 | BIT3 | BIT2 | BIT1 | BIT 0), but I doubt we need both
>>> BIT16 and BIT(16).
>>>
>>
>> BIT16 is a constant. BIT(16) is a chance for things to go badly wrong, e.g.
>> BIT(x-y) might produce some very strange problems. I kind of prefer the
>> constant.
>>
>> ron
>>
>> --
>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
>> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot



-- 
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle